What is interesting is how the second case has received only scant media coverage and prominence from pro-democracy civil society.

Assuming there isn’t enough information on this case, I urge those who are aware of it to aggressively spread the word and hopefully, the issue will be adequately covered in the media.

The principle of fairness also dictates progressive civil society should also include secessionists in their advocacy to free those who are being persecuted.

There are events, however, that have brought a sour taste to the mouth regarding the universality of human rights within the context of these two treason cases.

Issues of treason are serious and legally complex and those in custody deserve the best legal services if they are to escape the hangman’s noose or perennial incarceration.

Over the last decade, progressive civil society established a coping mechanism for human rights defenders to get reliable, swift and impartial legal reprieve.

This was in the form of a human rights association of legal practitioners who would render services to those whose human rights are being violated and who, ordinarily, would not have the means to afford legal representation.

This organisation, the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), has rendered sterling and outstanding service in pursuit of these noble objectives and has gone on to produce international award-winning lawyers who have defended the most vulnerable in our society.

It is in this light I find annoying allegations that this remarkable institution has declined to represent those advocating for a separate state because the institution does not support secession.

I am a midget when it comes to fully comprehending legal issues from a human rights perspective, neither am I secessionist but I do not believe it is criminal to advocate for a political alternative that has been taken in other countries.

While I fiercely oppose secession and with my limited grasp of human rights and legal issues, I am convinced it is within one’s human rights to advocate for a political alternative.

In any case, my belief is that an organisation that defends human rights defenders does not need to believe in the ideals of secession to represent those that do.

The issue is some Zimbabweans with a minority viewpoint are in solitary confinement for merely harbouring and selling ideas and they deserve reprieve.

My other belief is civil society exists to fight for the underdog who would otherwise have no space if there were no institutions deliberately established to give them a voice in an environment where the majority rules.

I have been refusing, in the last couple of weeks, that our erstwhile organisation has denied these opinionated gentlemen legal representation but evidence on the ground points to the contrary.

It appears legal practitioners in Bulawayo who are members of ZLHR have been fighting to get our organisation to represent the three without success.

The standoff has resulted in a number of top lawyers in Bulawayo cutting ties with ZLHR and the establishment of a new network of lawyers in Matabeleland known as the Abammeli Human Rights Lawyers Network. Abameli is a Ndebele word meaning “representatives”.

What is peculiar about the development is some of the barristers, who have, at some point in time coordinated the work of ZLHR in Matabeleland, are driving the new initiative. In my view, the powers-that-be at the ZLHR have handled the issue poorly and have unnecessarily stoked ethnic fires that they are now unlikely to be able to extinguish.

These developments have added to growing ethnic discontent in Matabeleland and the consequences may be too dire to contemplate for progressive civil society.

I have written earlier that Zimbabwe’s downfall will be triggered by the way in which those with influence are handling minority groups. Some may want to wish this event away but it is significant in many respects.

It is significant for grown men and women, who have many years in legal practice and are actually heading their own law firms, to take such a drastic measure.

The lawyers have put it on record that they are tired of being treated like second-class citizens.
They have said they are tired of the Ndebele being portrayed like dangerous militant hoodlums who cannot make a meaningful contribution to the national project.

I do not think it is too late for progressive civil society to relook at the issues of ethnicity and nationhood and how they can divide the country if they are not astutely handled.

Calls for secession are driven by years of marginalisation by President Robert Mugabe’s government and unresolved past human rights abuses.

They are also driven by suspicion of how the new players in government are handling the Matabeleland region as not showing signs of departure from Zanu PF’s handbook.

Leaving it too late will result in us missing the opportunity to take advantage of this transitional period to address the most contentious issue in this country so as to build a modern and inclusive state.

I call for a sincere investment in coming up with a viable national framework of handling the questions of ethnicity and nationhood in all corridors of power in this country.

That said and done, in the meanwhile, it becomes difficult not to sympathise with the Abammeli lawyers.